Cormac, I agree TB, like cheese or ketchup, makes everything better, but mentioning TB in this is a sure fire way for people to get defensive about the issue instead of actually thinking about it.

I think RT combat can be a lot better than the combat in the IE games, such as in the second UFO aftermath game, darklands, etc.

As a whole game, I liked BG2 and PS:T a lot as total games, but the combat brings instant classics to intolorable.

And this is keeping in mind almost all my favorite games had an over abundance of combat that stopped me from finishing them. But, no one touts the combat of these games as being fantastic, where the reverse is true for the IE games.

And if what aries says is true: If the only strategy comes from placement (which is only important in the 1&#37; of battles that aren't midless) you are left with only one small aspect of combat that is strategic in a handfull of fights. How is this good?

In darklands, every choice you made was important, same with the ufo game (speaking generally, obviuosly both games had some mindless combat), wouldn't that be far more strategic than 99% of the battles just being one click, set it and forget it?

WHat about the people that really loved the combat in the IE games, r thought it was combat done well: why? Can you tell us what was good about it and what was strategic?